Standing Committee B

[Mr. Edward O'Hara in the Chair]

Electoral Administration Bill

(Except clauses Nos. 9 to 18; any new clauses or new schedules relating to part 2 or part 3 of the Bill; any new clauses or new schedules relating to the procedure to be followed at an election on the death of a candidate; and any new clauses or new schedules relating to candidates standing in more than one constituency at an election.)

Edward O'Hara: Order. I remind the Committee that there is a money resolution in connection with the Bill, copies of which are in the Room. I also remind Members that adequate notice of proposed amendments should be given, and that, as is the normal convention, my co-Chairman and I will not, as a general rule, call starred amendments. Will Members please ensure that pagers and mobile phones are either turned off or in silent mode during Committee sittings?
Our first business is to consider the programme motion, debate on which may last for up to half an hour.

Harriet Harman: I beg to move,
That— 
(1) during the proceedings on the Electoral Administration Bill, in addition to its first meeting at 10.30 am on Tuesday 15th November, the Standing Committee shall meet at: 
(a) 4.00 p.m on Tuesday 15th November, 
(b) 9.00 am and 1.00 pm on Thursday 17th November, 
(c) 10.30 am and 4.00 pm on Tuesday 22nd November, 
(d) 9.00 am and 1.00 p.m on Thursday 24th November; 
(2) the Bill be considered in the following order, namely, Clauses 1 to 8, Clauses 19 to 66, Schedules 1 and 2, Clauses 67 to 71, new Clauses, new Schedules, remaining proceedings on the Bill; 
(3) proceedings on the Bill shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 4.00 p.m on Thursday 24th November. 
I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. O'Hara. Issues of electoral administration are close to all our hearts. I know that barely a waking moment goes by in which you do not think about achieving a complete and accurate register in Knowsley. There are keen volunteers on both sides of the Committee who are well experienced in these matters and who will bring to bear their experience of electoral administration in their constituencies. 
On Second Reading, we said—we shall keep true to it—that we in the Department of Constitutional Affairs are simply custodians of this issue for the House; we do not regard it as a totally owned issue. We will be open-minded. If Back Benchers from either side of the Committee table amendments that make sense and support them with strong arguments, we will accept them. We will listen to the argument and make our case.

Eleanor Laing: I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. O'Hara. I am sure that the Committee will be a constructive one. We had a good debate on Second Reading. There are certain matters upon which the Opposition disagree with the Government, but they are not enormous. I look forward to dealing with those matters in Committee, and I hope that the Minister and her colleagues will listen to arguments from both sides, as she kindly and courteously said that they would. Likewise, I hope that we will achieve a degree of consensus by the end of the Committee stage, because as the Minister said, the general purport of the Bill is good and necessary, and close to all our hearts. I support the resolution of the Programming Sub-Committee.

David Heath: I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. O'Hara. I have served under your chairmanship on long and complex Bills, but I hope that this Committee will be a shorter affair. I see no reason why the Committee should spend a great deal of time on its deliberations, although there are important matters to consider. We must deal with those expeditiously—thoroughly, but without unnecessarily prolonging the time that we spend here. I am happy with the programme motion and look forward to consideration of the many important amendments before the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.

Edward O'Hara: Before we commence our consideration of the Bill, I remind Members that parts 2 and 3 have already been considered by a Committee of the whole House, and that this Committee may not rehearse matters that have been discussed in the Chamber. I shall be vigilant, as will my co-Chairman, to ensure that debate does not stray into those areas.

Clause 1 - CORE schemes: establishment

Eleanor Laing: I beg to move amendment No. 35, in clause 1, page 1, line 4, after 'may', insert
', pursuant to consultation with all affected political parties,'.

Edward O'Hara: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 36, in clause 1, page 1, line 11, leave out 'may' and insert 'must'. 
No. 37, in clause 1, page 2, line 5, at end insert 
', and 
(c) require the CORE keeper to maintain the information securely to protect the integrity of the information from non-specified third parties.'. 
No. 43, in clause 6, page 5, line 42, at end insert 
'; and 
(e) affected political parties.'.

Eleanor Laing: Part 1 concerns the co-ordinated online record of electors—the CORE scheme. In principle it is a good idea, but we have concerns about it. Amendment No. 35 would alter clause 1 so that it would read, ''The Secretary of State may, pursuant to consultation with all affected political parties, by order make provision for the establishment of one or more  schemes (CORE schemes) in connection with the keeping and use of specified electoral registration information by a person designated by a scheme (the CORE keeper).''
The consultation process is important; those who administer the schemes will learn from them as time goes on. Indeed, it is hard to imagine why there should not be consultation on such a matter. The whole point of the Bill is to achieve consensus on how we deal with electoral administration. As the Minister has said previously, as the matter affects all relevant political parties, and we should therefore achieve some sort of consensus, a consultation process would be a good first step. Without consultation, how can it be known whether there is consensus? 
Amendment No. 36 would strengthen the clause. Clause 1(3) refers to a scheme that ''may'' require an electoral registration officer to provide the CORE keeper with the information and to update the information. It is hard to understand why the Bill should leave that as an optional extra. If we consider that the electoral registration officer should do certain things, why should the Bill say that the scheme ''may'' require it? Surely the scheme must require it. Whether it is required should not be left open to discussion. That is why we consider that the word ''must'' should replace the word ''may''. 
Likewise, amendment No. 37 refers to subsection (6). We suggest that an additional paragraph (c) be inserted to 
''require the CORE keeper to maintain the information securely to protect the integrity of the information from non-specified third parties.''
We do not mean to challenge what the Government propose; the amendment is intended to enhance the Bill. It is surely necessary that the information garnered be maintained securely—the electoral register contains sensitive information—and the integrity of the information should be protected from non-specified third parties. 
Amendment No. 42 refers to—

Edward O'Hara: Order. Amendment No. 42 is to be taken under clause 2.

Eleanor Laing: I beg your pardon, Mr. O'Hara; I meant to say amendment No. 43, which is included in the group, although it refers to clause 6. It is similar to amendment No. 35 in that it refers to ''affected political parties''. I presume that is why they are grouped together. Having made the point on amendment No. 35, I need not repeat myself.

Edward O'Hara: Order. Amendments with a similar purport that refer to later clauses but are included in an earlier debate are taken as read when we come to those later clauses. I sympathise with the hon. Lady, because the CORE scheme is dealt with in a number of clauses; it is therefore difficult not to stray. Indeed, when the Minister responds to the debate, she may wish to stray across the whole group of amendments—and I may allow her some discretion, as that may be easier than having repetitious debates on later clauses. We may as a result be able to shorten debate on stand part, but we do still have that opportunity for debate.

David Heath: Thank you, Mr. O'Hara, for that extremely wise guidance.

Edward O'Hara: I am allowed to pontificate.

David Heath: Pontification is a very important part of the Chairman's role.
I welcome the establishment of a co-ordinated online record of electors. Providing a degree of consistency in the provision of information, and enabling that information to be co-ordinated, will be of considerable benefit to political parties. It is a significant step forward. It will also allow for future experimentation in electoral administration practices if we have consistent arrangements across the country; for that reason, too, I welcome what is proposed. 
I hope that the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) will all prove to be otiose.

Henry Bellingham: That is a big word.

David Heath: I apologise if the word was too long for the hon. Gentleman; I thought that it was fairly short. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure the Committee that many of the matters covered by the amendments are axiomatic—another long word—within the Bill.
I raise my eyebrows slightly at the idea of an ''affected political party''. I hope that we always eschew affectation. Indeed, I wonder whether we should concentrate on ''all registered political parties'' or none. It is hard to see which parties will be affected by electoral registration and which will not. I suggest that the amendment could be better worded.

Eleanor Laing: I entirely take the hon. Gentleman's point, but he is creating a synonym. If all political parties are affected, as he suggests, that is perfectly consistent with the amendment, which says, ''all affected political parties.'' If he suggests that that means all political parties, so be it. That is perfectly consistent.

David Heath: I do not want to enter into an etymological debate, because it is not worth spending that much time on the amendment. As I said, I simply seek assurance from the Minister that the content of the amendment is a matter of course.
Amendment No. 36 is the perennial ''may'' to ''shall'', or ''may'' to ''must'' debate. The Government's intention behind the clause is very clear. Indeed, it would be remarkable if they set up the scheme but then decided not to take the necessary steps to enable the electoral registration officer to carry out the work involved. 
I am not absolutely clear how amendment No. 37 would affect the provision in subsection (6)(b), which already provides for a specification of how information is to be recorded and stored. It is implicit that the subsection provides for security of storage to prevent unauthorised use, but if the Minister assures the Committee in that respect, we will have done our duty in bringing it to the  Committee's attention and we need not pursue the matter further.

Harriet Harman: Before I discuss the amendments, it would be helpful if I gave a very brief overview of the structure of part 1, which contains clauses 1 to 8. These are eight clauses of primary legislation, and I assure the Committee that there will be detailed consultation thereafter, followed by regulations. We are really discussing only the overall framework at the moment. There will be very detailed discussions at consultation, followed by regulations.
Part 1 is designed to provide the powers necessary for the Government to establish a CORE scheme, which is intended to be an arrangement whereby a record of the information currently held only by several locally based electoral registration officers can be consolidated at one central point. Several benefits are to be gained from having a central register of electoral registration data. In particular, a consolidated record allows data to be matched across otherwise separate electoral registers, which can help to identify where individuals are registered wrongly, in more than one place. 
Clause 1 provides the key set of enabling powers that allow the Secretary of State to provide by order for the detail of how a CORE scheme should work, particularly in relation to the types of information that local electoral registration officers will be required to send to the CORE infrastructure, the timing and the manner in which such information must be sent, and the manner in which the body responsible for operating the central CORE infrastructure, who will be called the keeper, must hold the information. 
Clause 2 lays the foundations for the rules, which will have to be detailed, on how the personal data that CORE will hold can be used. They include the rule governing the persons to whom access to the information is to be provided, and under what circumstances. Clause 3 allows the Secretary of State to make the grants to the CORE keeper necessary to meet the cost of running the scheme. Clause 4 allows the Electoral Commission to be appointed as the CORE keeper, if that is what is decided. 
Clause 5 makes a range of supplemental provisions for what issues may be covered in the detail of a CORE scheme, such as handling payments between a CORE keeper and an electoral registration officer, and the ability to provide an alternative personal identifier in place of a signature if the latter would otherwise be required for electoral registration purposes. 
Clause 6 sets out the procedure for making a scheme order. Clause 7 allows an electoral registration officer to make use of information received from a CORE keeper in the performance of his or her duty. Clause 8 is merely an interpretation clause. 
This part of the Bill does not seek to establish the details of how a CORE scheme will work. We do not believe that primary legislation is the appropriate vehicle for that. We intend to consult shortly. I would like to be able to produce the consultation paper before Report. I do not want to do the dance of the  seven veils in this Committee, so I apologise that we do not have the consultation document ready. It would have been helpful for hon. Members if they could have seen the extent of the detail and the wide range of issues that will be included in it. 
I apologise, but because that document has not been signed off, I cannot yet share it with the Opposition. It is detailed and has many exciting organograms—which I am holding up now to show to hon. Members. Nothing will not have a picture attached. The issues are technical, but they will be fully consulted on. I have the consultation document with me; no doubt before it is issued it will grow, but this is how much it weighs at the moment. 
We will consult shortly on our detailed proposals, and I hope that the consultation document will be in hon. Members' hands before Report. The debate on the amendments will allow us to be absolutely sure that we have included in the consultation paper all the issues flagged up by hon. Members.

Eleanor Laing: I accept the Minister's apology, and I am sure that it is not her fault that the consultation paper is not available for the Committee to consider. However, I want to put it on the record that that makes the consideration of the Bill less relevant than it would have been had we had that paper in front of us. The Government are asking the Committee to agree to part 1, and the Minister has adequately explained its intentions, but the point of what she has just said is that there will be a consultation on the consultation paper. As she has graphically explained, that paper contains an awful lot of information. What we are discussing this morning simply gives life to the consultation, and is pretty meaningless without it, and so I would like it to be noted that the work of the Committee is incomplete.

Harriet Harman: What we are doing this morning is simply agreeing the principle of having a CORE. That is all we are doing, and I hope that this morning I can assure hon. Members that there will be detailed consultations, which will come back to the House. I assure hon. Members that we will ensure that any issue that they want to raise will be put in the consultation paper. Of course, I appreciate that hon. Members do not know what is in it, so raising what is not in it may be—perhaps I will move swiftly off that point. There will be an extraordinarily comprehensive consultation paper, and then regulations. The subject will return to the House. If, inadvertently, something that hon. Members want to include in the consultation document is not there, there is no reason why Members should not put forward their views at that point to be considered for inclusion in the regulations.
We are not pre-empting the regulations; it would not be right for this Committee to do so. The regulations will follow the consultation. We are simply agreeing the skeleton. I assure the Committee that we will have full consultation before we get to the regulations that will put the flesh on the bones of the skeleton. There will be another parliamentary opportunity, as I am about to explain. 
Amendments Nos. 35 and 43 would require consultation with all affected political parties before  the Secretary of State could lay regulations. They are unnecessary, because the regulations containing the details of CORE schemes will be made by affirmative order. Hon. Members will debate the detail and locations of the schemes and they will go ahead only with parliamentary approval. That is the next stage. 
As I have said, the Department is about to start a full formal consultation on the national access arrangements to be taken forward by CORE. That will, of course, provide all interested persons, including political parties, with the opportunity to participate in the putting forward of the detailed regulations in the design of CORE. Finally, amendment No. 35 is broadly worded, which might be problematic in practice when attempts are made to distinguish between an affected political party and something that is not an affected political party. I know that that is a minor point—probably just a drafting point. 
Amendment No. 36 would make it a requirement, rather than a possibility, that a CORE scheme should specify the times at which and manner in which an ERO should provide information to a CORE keeper, and subsequently update it. The timing and manner of the provision of information between an ERO and a CORE keeper will be fundamental to the achievement of a properly functioning CORE system and the realisation of most of the key benefits. Therefore, it is difficult to envisage circumstances in which we should not want to specify such matters in a CORE scheme. That will happen under regulation. Accordingly, we are sympathetic to the purpose of amendment No. 36, and want to give it further consideration before Report. I therefore ask that it not be pressed to a vote for the time being. 
Amendment No. 37 would provide specifically that a CORE scheme could require a CORE keeper to maintain the information securely, to prevent its being accessible to anyone but authorised third parties. Of course, we accept the principle behind the amendment, that personal data should be protected from unauthorised access by those responsible for holding the data. However, existing legislation dealing with data protection will already provide adequate safeguards, in relation to the responsibility that is given to the CORE keeper for protecting the data from inappropriate access. 
In addition, part 1 of the Bill allows the Secretary of State to deal with detailed questions on the securing of data beyond the data protection issues. For example, clause 1(6)(a) allows the Secretary of State to specify an electronic form in which the CORE keeper must maintain the information. That power can be used to specify that the software must comply with a particular set of technical security standards or protocols. I hope that on that basis and with those assurances the hon. Lady will agree not to press the amendments.

Brian Binley: My mind is now a little clearer. I am one of those elderly people who hark back to the A, B and C lists, and the ability to scrutinise matters relating to the register. I think that the Minister has set my mind at rest about whether the consultation document and the regulations will allow us to go into such detail in  scrutiny. If an assurance is being given that that is so, I am more than happy, at this stage.

Eleanor Laing: I accept the Minister's explanation, and do not want to take up the Committee's time further on this matter. It was important to explore the issues. Now that we have done so and heard the Minister's reasonable explanation I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 - Use of CORE information

Eleanor Laing: I beg to move amendment No. 40, in clause 2, page 3, line 19, at end insert 'in an individual constituency;'.

Edward O'Hara: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 42, in clause 5, page 5, line 40, at end insert—
'(11) A CORE scheme shall make provision to allow registered political parites full access, without charge, to information controlled by the CORE keeper. Access to information shall be governed by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (c.41).'.

Eleanor Laing: The Minister has already outlined the intention behind clause 2. The amendments are probing. Amendment No. 40 relates to clause 2(6), which states:
''These are the circumstances . . . the same person acts as proxy for more than two electors''.
The amendment suggests adding the words ''in an individual constituency'' at the end. Perhaps the Minister can explain the matter further, because there is a difference between a person acting as a proxy for two electors in one constituency and for more than two electors in several constituencies. If the amendment is not accepted, there could be a loophole in the legislation, and the amendment is intended to close that loophole before it even opens. Acting as a proxy is a serious matter, because if someone who worked for or represented a political party was allowed to be proxy for large numbers of people in different constituencies, which is quite possible, they would hold an awful lot of power over voting.

David Heath: It seems to me that the hon. Lady's amendment would do the reverse of what she is saying: it would create the possibility of a peripatetic proxy wandering around the country. Under the wording in the Bill, however, that would be reported as part of the CORE procedures.

Eleanor Laing: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly reasonable point, but, as I said, this is a probing amendment. It is necessary to explore the issue a little further, and I thank him for assisting in that exploration.
Amendment No. 42 deals with a similar situation. We suggest including a further condition in the procedure for CORE schemes under clause 6(4), which states that the Secretary of State must consult 
''the ERO who acts for each area proposed to be specified in the scheme''.
The amendment therefore states: 
''A CORE scheme shall make provision to allow registered political parites full access, without charger, to information controlled by the CORE keeper. Access to information shall be governed by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (c.41).''
It is important that registered political parties have access to the information held by the ERO, no matter how that information is held. We tabled the amendment to explore the issue further, and I am sure that the Minister will be delighted to assist in that exploration.

John Pugh: First, I submit a grovelling apology for having turned up a little late. My colleagues and I were puzzled by amendment No. 40 and the concept of the peripatetic proxy, and we still are, to some extent. The amendment would not be helpful in reducing fraud, and would not achieve very much.
However, we welcome amendment No. 42 as it stands and as it sounds, although we are bit puzzled by the reference to ''parites''. I do not know whether those are a cross between parties and parasites, but there certainly needs to be some textual tidying up.

Eleanor Laing: Obviously, there is a typing error: the word ''parites'' is clearly meant to be ''parties''. Can we take that as read, Mr. O'Hara?

Edward O'Hara: The Chairman had already taken it as read.

John Pugh: I am grateful for that clarification. To some extent, amendment No. 42 embodies what we all recognise to be good practice these days. Most of us have harmonious relationships with EROs. One or two of them can, at times, be curmudgeonly and unhelpful, but by and large they are helpful. The amendment seems, to some extent, simply to exemplify what we take to be good practice. The difficulty in putting it on the statute book is that it needs a certain amount of tidying up and clarification, because it raises the possibility—God forbid—of political parties making unreasonable demands from time to time.
The amendment uses the general word ''information''. Presumably, some of the information held by EROs includes the reasons why some people do not feature on the electoral register at all, which may be to do with personal circumstances, criminal factors and other such considerations. However, in terms of the spirit of the amendment, I do not think that it could do much harm. Indeed, it might well do some good for seasoned operators such as those assembled here.

Harriet Harman: Amendment No. 40 seeks to bring the clause more into line with the existing restrictions on proxy voting set out in paragraph 6(6) of schedule 4 to the Representation of the People Act 2000, which states that the same individual may not vote as a proxy for more than two electors in the same constituency at a parliamentary election, or the same electoral area at a local election. Exception is made where the proxy and electors in question are close family members. The amendment refers only to the circumstances in a constituency, whereas the 2000 Act restriction also  applies to local elections. The amendment would therefore inappropriately limit the information that a CORE keeper should send to an ERO, although I am sure that that was not the intention.
The intention is that a CORE will serve, in the first instance, as an early warning device to identify where proxies have been appointed and are at risk of infringing the restriction on voting in that capacity. As we propose in the forthcoming consultation paper on CORE national access arrangements, the CORE record could use information from absent voters lists, which are maintained under schedule 4 to the 2000 Act, to identify where individuals who are appointed as proxies have the potential to infringe the restriction were an election to occur. 
Perhaps I can make an offer at this point. When the Bill was published, we held a meeting in Portcullis House to give hon. Members the opportunity to discuss it with officials, because a lot of it is quite technical, and there is no reason why Members should not have direct access to officials. The meeting was useful because as a result of Members asking the officials questions and clarifying their understanding they did not take issue on points simply because they did not understand them rather than because they disagreed with them. 
I am wondering whether I should make an offer on the consultation document—that when we produce it, which will, I hope, be before Report, we should convene again in Portcullis House, at a meeting open to all Members of the House, with a team of the extraordinarily expert officials that we have in the DCA, at which people can go through the document. Where there are points of substance, they will have the opportunity to raise them in the debate on the regulations, but where the points are not of substance, they will know that they are not. If points of substance that we did not consider are raised at that point, we may be able to cover them in the regulations.

David Heath: I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for that extremely helpful offer, which we shall certainly take up.

Eleanor Laing: I, too, thank the Minister for that offer. It is an extremely good idea, as there will be both points of substance and misunderstandings, and it is important that we should clarify the difference between them, argue the former and discard the latter. Such a meeting with officials would be both welcome and valuable.

Harriet Harman: I shall take that forward, then.
The idea is that the CORE would provide an early warning via the absent voter list. That would serve as a trigger to EROs to contact such proxies—and the electors by whom they were appointed—directly, in order to improve their awareness of the proxy voting restrictions, and to ensure that they knew what they were not supposed to be doing, or to check that they were members of the same family. 
Post-election, there could be a more focused local check, using marked registers showing whether such proxies had breached the statutory restrictions. Generally speaking, we believe that prevention by  early detection of risk on the basis of absent voter entitlement lists is desirable. 
The purpose of Amendment No. 42 is to ensure that a CORE scheme includes provision to allow registered political parties free access to the information controlled by the CORE keeper. We agree with the general principle that political parties should not have any lesser access to electoral registration information from CORE in future than they currently have in relation to electoral registration officers. However, we believe that the effect of the amendment would go beyond merely replicating the access that the parties have to the information held by an ERO. Additionally, the Bill contains provision for a CORE scheme to specify to whom information held in CORE may be provided and on what basis, and in our view the scheme is the more appropriate place in which to specify such details. 
The existence in future of two potential sources of the same information—the ERO and CORE—makes it reasonable to consider whether data users should be able to approach either or both for that information. For example, it might be appropriate to prescribe that big national users, such as large political party headquarters, should be able to obtain the information only from CORE, while small local bodies—for example, local branches of parties and candidates—should be able to obtain the information only from a local ERO. Similarly, the technology likely to be employed for CORE could allow much more efficient access for data users, including potentially active electronic access directly to CORE rather than passive receipt of copies of information. 
Access to the information held by CORE, in particular for large users of the data, is addressed specifically in the consultation paper, which we will discuss with hon. Members. The amendment would negate any such detailed consideration of those issues, as it would instantly require the provision of access to CORE information for all registered political parties, some of which are very small. 
We are also concerned that the wording of the proposed amendment—particularly ''full access''—would extend the access beyond that which parties have in relation to an ERO. While the proposed amendment purports to cross-reference this to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, we do not believe that such a reference would be sufficient to contain it. Instead, we propose to use provisions already in the Bill to specify in a CORE scheme the details of how access to information for political parties should operate with regard to the data held by a CORE keeper, or the marked registers that might in due course be held by CORE on behalf of EROs. We believe that secondary legislation is the most appropriate place in which to address detailed rules that properly specify the extent and nature of such access.

Eleanor Laing: I appreciate the Minister's long explanation. However, once again it is difficult for the Committee to discuss the full effect of what is before it without access to the consultation paper. I understand and appreciate the Minister's offer of a consultation meeting between officials and not only  members of this Committee but any Member of the House. However, it is difficult for us to do the work that we are here to do now—to consider this part of the Bill in detail.
I appreciate, too, what the Minister has said about who the CORE keeper should be, and in what circumstances. Will she explain further the thinking behind the difference in the access to the information allowed to a national political party and that afforded to a smaller organ of that party, such as a constituency party? Access to the electoral register is an important tool in political campaigning, and I agree with the Minister that it has to be carefully guarded. 
Will the Minister explain further how the Government envisage the role of electoral registration officers developing given the new duties that the Bill places on them? Will she also explain further how access will be offered and regulated? The way in which information is held on CORE is also important. It must be secure but at the same time available to those to whom it ought to be available, and not available to those to whom it ought not. That may be stating the obvious, but I would be grateful if the Minister explained further. 
I would also be grateful if the Minister explained another issue further, but she cannot. I really want her to explain how the regulations in relation to this part of the Bill will work when they are implemented, but I appreciate that she cannot give me a positive answer because the regulations cannot be discussed this morning. I do not want to be repetitive and take up the Committee's time, but that makes it difficult to discuss the matter with any real meaning. 
I appreciate that it is not the Minister's fault that the regulations are not available, but why are they not? If it is taking longer than the Government expected to compile them, why did we not simply postpone the Committee stage? It would have been perfectly possible for us to hold this sitting next week or the week after, at which point we would have had and considered the regulations and could have had a constructive discussion. I appreciate that I am asking questions that the Minister cannot answer, but the situation is frustrating.

Brian Binley: I express my concern at the points my hon. Friend has made about the consultation document. I recognise how difficult it is for the Minister not to have the document, which is a vital piece of information that would have cleared up a number of the issues that we have started discussing. Sadly, we cannot clear those issues up, because we do not know what is in the document.
I am concerned that there may be some hint of what is in the document in the Minister's comments, but we are unable to confirm that. Her comments therefore present us with questions, which we will duly ask, and I have no doubt that we will be told that the points are dealt with in the document and that we will have to wait for it. That makes this whole process difficult. 
I have two concerns. The first relates to the Minister's comments on segregating the distribution  of information, which seems quite a fraught point. She suggested that national political organisations would be able to gain information from CORE, but that local political organisations should get information from the electoral registration officer. However, some of the questions that will pose themselves will be inter-constituency, inter-area questions, and we will have real difficulty dealing with those questions if information distribution takes the strata form suggested by the Minister. 
My second cause for concern relates to my general point that scrutiny of the electoral register is vital to the whole process of good election conduct and to assuring the voters of this country that the electoral administration undertaken on their behalf is good. I was particularly concerned about the concept that the question of anonymity could be denied scrutiny. 
I understand the Minister's perfectly fair reason for including the clause on anonymity. Of course we need to protect as far as possible people who are open to danger and abuse, but I see no reason why recognised, credible people should not be able to see the information held by CORE under some legal prefix that forbids them from disseminating it further. That would make the situation more open. There is no doubt that the anonymity clause gives rise to concern.

Edward O'Hara: Order. I seem to remember the hon. Gentleman referring to the anonymity clause on the Floor of the House.

Harriet Harman: He did.

Edward O'Hara: It is undesirable—indeed, out of order—to refer to it again in Committee.

Brian Binley: I take your guidance, Mr. O'Hara.

Harriet Harman: I return to the framework. In essence, the Bill is asking the House to decide whether it wants a CORE. I assume that we all believe the answer to be yes. The question is how we determine its operation. Do we want to do so under primary legislation, or is it better suited to regulations? I believe that this is a classic case of the need to take powers, to consult in detail and to return the matter to the House in regulations.
At the start of this part of our discussion, I thought that it would probably have been a very bad idea to have got the consultation paper ready, because we would have discussed all the issues raised by the consultation paper, even though we are not here to discuss the regulations. I ask hon. Members to consider the concept that this is not a late consultation paper on primary powers. We are not consulting on the primary powers. The powers are simply a framework. They are as they are. This is an early consultation paper on secondary powers. 
We need to consult on whether we want everyone to have access to the information held by the ERO and that held by CORE, because the question relates to access that should be governed by detailed regulations about how the CORE scheme will work. 
Again, I recommend the overall framework. We are going the right way about this, and I have decided that  it would not have been a good idea to have got the consultation paper ready. Even with your iron chairmanship, Mr. O'Hara, it would have been very difficult not to get into a detailed discussion of all the questions and answers in the consultation document.

Eleanor Laing: The Minister may be right, but do we have her undertaking that at the appropriate time the regulations resulting from the consultation will be laid before the House in the usual way, in a delegated legislation Committee, and that we shall then have the opportunity to discuss them in great detail?

Harriet Harman: I can give that assurance, and do better. We shall have detailed consultations when the consultation paper is published. We shall have two further bites of the cherry on the matter of the detail. We shall welcome the proposals that the consultation paper will give rise to. We have no hidden agenda. We just want to get things right, and we appreciate that we will be helped in that by as much input as possible from hon. Members. That is what we shall arrange.

Eleanor Laing: I accept the Minister's assurances and look forward to further discussion in different forums in future. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 - CORE scheme grants

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

David Heath: Why, given that the clause is concerned with, effectively, a governmental structure—one necessary for the proper administration of the electoral system—is there a need for subsection (4), which provides for
''conditions as to the circumstances in which the . . . grant is to be repaid''?
Presumably, in this instance, it would be repaid by the Electoral Commission, if it was the commissioning agent, or by individual returning officers, further down the track. I can understand that the issue might arise if criminal fraud were involved, but I believe that that is taken care of in other ways. Why does the Minister think that there is a need for conditions for the repayment of the grant necessary for setting up the CORE provisions?

Harriet Harman: Probably there will not be a need for it, but I am confident that if we had not included it the hon. Gentleman would have tabled an amendment to investigate what would happen if, after having been given all the relevant money, the keeper were to be dissolved, or became unable to perform its functions, and it was desirable to appoint another keeper. The subsection is just a matter of thinking of all eventualities. We do not expect it to be needed. We expect that the arrangements, as with all the Government's computer programmes, will go swimmingly. It is sensible, in using substantial amounts of public money, to make sure that if those to whom a grant is made cannot perform the duty in  question, or if circumstances change, the money can be retrieved.
I assure hon. Members once again that the matter will be subject to consultation through the consultation document. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his probing question, which we shall discuss further when we come to consider regulations.

David Heath: I am not absolutely sure that I should necessarily table an amendment on the effect of the subsection, because the CORE keeper is, by definition, a public body. It is set up by statute and is entirely within the control of the Government. Therefore, any circumstances in which it could go bust or otherwise fail to perform its functions would seem to amount to an indictment of the Department and the Government, rather than anyone else. Does a similar arrangement exist between the Department for Constitutional Affairs or the Treasury? Is it a condition that the Department for Constitutional Affairs should repay its Treasury grant if it fails to meet expectations?

Harriet Harman: I would not want to stray into answering that question, for many reasons. I can give the Committee some more science on the point; the provision for grant repayment is a reminder that we have to cover for every eventuality.

Eleanor Laing: The Minister would not expect me to pass over the fact that this part of the Bill authorises the expenditure of taxpayers' money without questioning her on how and to what extent that money is to be spent. I have several questions.
First, the Secretary of State ''may pay grant'' to a CORE keeper. Will that grant replace other Government money now being spent in that area of administration, or is it new expenditure? I ask as I genuinely do not know the answer. 
Secondly, will the money that the Government spend on behalf of the taxpayer for that purpose no longer be spent, or will that pot of money be added to the additional funding being made available under clause 3(3)(1)? In other words, is it new money or replacement money? It is the essential duty of the Opposition to safeguard taxpayers' money from a Government who like too much to spend it. On the other hand, it is certainly not wrong or a misuse of funds to spend taxpayers' money on the further enhancement of our electoral system and the workings of our democracy. Nevertheless, the Committee deserves further explanation. 
Thirdly, the grant is to be paid by the Secretary of State to a CORE keeper, so it could be paid to the Electoral Commission. If so, will the commission be given more taxpayers' money to do the work that it already does, or are we authorising the Government to increase the amount being given to the commission because it is to be given further powers and duties; or does it represent a change to the way in which the commission works, and will it receive the same funding? 
My concern, as ever, is that we pass legislation in all innocence, believing the Government's assurances that it is necessary whatever the purpose might be. We  unanimously agree that the general purpose of the Bill is good, because it will enhance the way in which elections will be undertaken and therefore enhance and protect the democratic process. That is all very worthy. However, we so often find that we, as representatives of the taxpayer, have somehow, wittingly or unwittingly, authorised the expenditure of taxpayers' money where it is not absolutely necessary. Given that the Treasury holds one pot of money for all purposes, we should always remember that if taxpayers' money is spent on such purposes, it cannot be spent on hospitals, schools, social services departments and so on. 
When we argue that cuts have been made in one area or another, we have used taxpayers' money for another purpose. I will not stray into a general consideration of such matters, but restrict myself to considering whether this is necessary expenditure.

Chris Ruane: As I mentioned on the Floor of the House, statistics on how much is spent by local authorities are not collected centrally. I have some figures for Wales, which illustrate how little is being spent on registration and electoral matters. For a council such as Swansea, the figure was 52p in 2001, 55p in 2002 and 70p in 2003. Those are piffling amounts—[Hon. Members: ''Per elector.''] Yes, per elector. If money is to be spent centrally or locally, I believe as a democrat that this is a wise and just way of spending taxpayers' money.

Eleanor Laing: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important information. We discovered that those in Wales are frugal in their expenditure on electoral matters, and rightly so. It is hard to work out—I cannot immediately do the arithmetic in my head—what those figures mean. I could do it if I had the numbers, but I do not know how many electors there are in Wales.

David Cairns: Fifty eight thousand, nine hundred and seventy six.

Eleanor Laing: I will happily give way to the Minister, if he wants. However many there are, I am sure that it is a bargain that the registration of each elector in Wales costs only that.
The real point is that, if the Committee gives the Secretary of State the power to 
''pay grant to a CORE keeper towards expenditure incurred or to be incurred by him in connection with the exercise of his functions under the scheme'',
is that new money or a replacement for old money? It is important to keep track of where public expenditure is growing. This is a part of public expenditure. I accept what the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) said about the ''piffling'' amount. It certainly is not a large amount of money, but that is not my point. Whoever it was who said that if one looks after the pennies the pounds take care of themselves—I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would agree—

Henry Bellingham: Was it Charles Kennedy?

Eleanor Laing: My hon. Friend says it was the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr.  Kennedy). I am sure that it was somebody with far greater wisdom in such matters and a long time ago. I remember my grandmother saying it, and I do not think that she made it up.

Jim Devine: I think it was Harry Lauder.

Eleanor Laing: Harry Lauder did say most things. For the benefit of those members of the Committee who do not know of Harry Lauder, he was a great celebrity in Scotland whose poetry and songs encompassed most matters.

Edward O'Hara: Order. The hon. Lady is straying beyond the terms of reference and, dare I say it, has been repetitious in her remarks since the intervention.

Eleanor Laing: I beg your pardon, Mr. O'Hara. You are quite right to halt me in my tracks as I try to keep right on to the end of the road. It is difficult to see how we could discuss the songs of Harry Lauder in the context of the Bill.
It has been said—by whoever it was—that if we look after the pennies, the pounds will take care of themselves. I accept that this may be a small public expenditure, but many small amounts add up to large amounts.

Chris Ruane: The hon. Lady says that these amounts are small. What amount per elector does she think it would be reasonable to spend on registration for electoral purposes?

Eleanor Laing: That is a reasonable question, but people who know me would never ask me such a question. This is not my subject. I always manage to spend far more money than is reasonable in any area. However, in all seriousness, if some 60p per elector is spent at present, and if that produces a good, efficient, safe and workable system, that amount is probably about right. I question the need to spend more if the amount that is spent now produces a good system. However, if our deliberations were to show that the current system is not good enough and does not produce safe election results—by that I mean results in which everyone concerned can have confidence—it would be necessary to spend more.
Chris Ruane rose—

Eleanor Laing: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Edward O'Hara: Order. I have the highest regard for the hon. Lady, but, before she takes another intervention, I should tell her that she has made her point at least three, if not four, times.

Chris Ruane: The hon. Lady says that if the money that is being spent at present is producing results, that should be good enough. I analysed Welsh expenditure in the 22 authorities and coupled it with registration rates. The analysis shows that those authorities that spend less on registration—I listed the figures in descending order—have lower registration results. The figures are available for the hon. Lady to study. There are no figures for England, and I do not know about Scotland. However, there are figures for Wales,  and, if they are the only data available, we should consider them seriously.

Eleanor Laing: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. He suggests that more people will be on the electoral register, and that more of our citizens will have the opportunity to exercise their democratic rights at the ballot box, if we spend more money. I am sure that the Minister will respond to that point.
I simply wish to know whether this is new money—extra money—and to be absolutely certain that the Committee will not allow taxpayers' money to be spent unless it is absolutely necessary to do so.

Brian Binley: I too wish to speak about money. One reason why electors send us to this place is so that we can ensure that care is taken in the spending of their money and that expenditure is properly scrutinised.
I preface my remarks by saying that I am a local councillor. As I understand it, this is the only part of the Bill that deals with costs. I say this with some trepidation on the basis that you might rule me out of order, Mr. O'Hara—I hope that you will forgive me—but it is always made clear in my county council that any proposal that involves the spending of money must be introduced along with some concept of the cost. I therefore assume that the same happens in this place. The Minister might be kind and tell us, in round figures, how much the creation of a CORE register will cost. 
Wearing my second hat, I have said before that my business is building databases; I would not dare to say it now. A massive database is being built and the cost of such an exercise is immense, as the Government know, to the taxpayer's cost, with regard to other activities. What work has been done on the exercise, and does the Minister have any idea of its cost? I agree with the concept of CORE but we should make a decision on the basis of the cost to the taxpayer. 
I acknowledge the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd's point about the cost per elector at ERO level. I appreciate that there is a differential between the efficiencies of one ERO and another and that is often related to the quality of grant and the expenditure control of a given local authority and I accept that we must try to eradicate it. But before we say yes to a particular concept, we should at least have some idea what it will cost the taxpayer and how it will be done. We must understand the difficulties involved in putting such a database together. I should be grateful if the Minister included a response to those thoughts in her reply.

Harriet Harman: Setting up a new system, for which we are asking the Committee's support, must be paid for. However thrifty the Electoral Commission is with its resources, we would be astonished if it already had enough in its budget to set up the system. Therefore, the initial implementation of CORE national access has been allocated £10 million from the capital modernisation fund, which is a Treasury grant. Thereafter the CORE scheme will require ongoing running costs to be met. The financial provision proposed in the Bill is necessary to allow appropriate  funds to be made available to CORE keepers to enable them to perform their statutory duties to maintain the CORE scheme efficiently and effectively. The point about grants in clause 3(4) is that if they can do the work for less money, they can repay part of the grant. It is part of the proposal's flexibility.
My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd made a very important point. With respect to the hon. Member for Epping Forest, as my hon. Friend has information for Wales that we do not have for England, we do not know whether they are being frugal in Wales. My hon. Friend seems to have established that the more that is spent per elector the more secure the register is and the more it is proof against fraud, because money is spent ensuring that there are no multiple registrations. The more complete the register is, the fewer people are left off and not allowed to vote. 
The Bill introduces transparency to enable us to consider the important value-for-money issues that Opposition Members raised. Previously, neither the House nor individual Members were able to know how much was being spent and to what effect. 
This has been an important debate on what is being spent on democracy and what we are getting for that money.

Eleanor Laing: Given that the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd eloquently proved that in Wales it has been possible to collect the information necessary to make a judgment on these matters and to work out the efficiency, should not that be done in the rest of the United Kingdom? Will the Minister undertake to do it?

Harriet Harman: That is exactly what the Bill enables us to do, and we will discover that different amounts need to be spent in different areas. In areas such as my own in Camberwell and Peckham, there is a highly mobile population, with many young people, many people living in rented accommodation and many people from the new Commonwealth, particularly Africa. In such areas, we must invest quite a lot to ensure that the register is complete, accurate and up to date. On the other hand, in areas such as Somerton and Frome, where I imagine more people are owner-occupiers, fewer are from the new Commonwealth and fewer are under 50, it is probably not such a difficult exercise.
The CORE budget is £10 million initially. That money will be spent according to the way in which the House wants the project to be designed and approves in regulations.

Brian Binley: The Minister's point is fair and reasonable, but again the cost of ensuring that scrutiny can take place is higher in areas where there is more movement in the way that the Minister described. Will the Minister take that into account when we discuss grants for local government?

Harriet Harman: We are dealing here with the grants to the CORE keeper. The CORE scheme may take some of the burden off individual electoral registration officers, because people can get the national picture from the national CORE scheme instead of having to  ask each registration officer. Therefore, responsibility for some actions may be shifted from local to national.
Elsewhere in the Bill, as the hon. Gentleman will know, other duties and responsibilities are laid down on electoral registration officers. For those general duties £17 million is made available, but for the CORE scheme the initial allocation from the Treasury's capital modernisation grant is £10 million.

Chris Ruane: In my view, £10 million divided by 44 million or 46 million electors is money well spent. If the money is used to create an accurate central database whose information can then be disseminated, especially to the poorer local authorities that have difficulty in getting up-to-date register lists, it will be money well spent; £10 million to run a democracy.
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 - Electoral Commission

Question proposed, That clause 4 stand part of the Bill.

Eleanor Laing: Once again the provision refers to Wales. I am glad that we are considering Wales in great detail, as the administration of democracy in Wales has been a key part of our deliberations for many years.

David Heath: I would hate the hon. Lady to misdirect her comments. The provision merely happens to lie in the Bill after the section that refers to Wales. The clause is not specifically about Wales.

Eleanor Laing: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, which, as usual, is perfectly reasonable. I appreciate that the clause does not refer specifically to Wales; I was merely taking the opportunity to compliment those who deal with electoral administration in Wales. They had to administer one of the closest results of any recent democratic exercise undertaken in the United Kingdom; namely, the referendum on the Welsh Assembly.
I was about to say that that referendum is a very good example of why it is important that the rights systems are in place, and that they are financed in the right way and use the best modern technology that is available. When a result is so, so close, and it affects many people and the governance of a large part of the United Kingdom—

Chris Ruane: I have the amount spent per elector for Wales for the past 10 years in front of me. In 1998, the year in which the referendum was held, 17p per elector was spent. This year it is £1.25 per elector. Such a small amount was spent that the result of the referendum may have been down to an inaccurate register.

Eleanor Laing: Another excellent point by the hon. Gentleman. Had Wales spent more, it might have got a better result. Mr. O'Hara, I may not be allowed to say that.

Edward O'Hara: Order. An incidental reference is made to the Local Government Boundary  Commission for Wales in the clause. I ask the hon. Lady to come to order.

Eleanor Laing: Thank you, Mr. O'Hara. I do not intend to try your patience further.
When does the Minister propose to make a decision on whether the Electoral Commission should be a designated CORE keeper? My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk raised the following point earlier in a completely different context. Does proposed new section 20A of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 mean that the Electoral Commission will be the CORE keeper for all purposes, or are we still talking about the Electoral Commission being the CORE keeper for national matters but not the CORE keeper of information in individual constituencies or districts?

Harriet Harman: I hope that I can assist the hon. Lady by saying that, during the consultation and before we introduce regulations, the House must consider, among other things, whether to establish CORE through a big bang, where suddenly it is all over the country in one go, or to introduce it in a couple of regions and build it up. If we build it up, it might be sensible for one of the electoral registration officers in that region to be the CORE keeper for that regional roll-out.
Other countries that have a national register, such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada, use their electoral commissions. Proposed new section 20A makes it possible for the commission to be a CORE keeper at national level, but it is just a possibility. We do not rule out, as the national scheme builds up, transitional CORE keepers, who might be well-experienced registration officers in particular regions, starting the CORE ball rolling.

Brian Binley: For certain members of my party, including myself, the word ''regionalisation'' sends shivers up and down our backbone. I want to be assured that the matter is in no way related to the whole concept of a united Europe.—[Interruption.] I said it sent shivers up and down my back. Secondly, as to the term CORE keeper, which has a Harry Potter connection in a sense, will the Minister be kind and explain what sort of establishment she feels might constitute the CORE keeper's office?

Harriet Harman: The flexibility in allowing designation of CORE keepers is due to the argument that can be made, on which we shall want to consult, for a staged approach to implementation. The CORE keeper might, ultimately, look pretty much like the Electoral Commission. That is what it looks like in other countries. When the national scheme is ready, that becomes one of that body's responsibilities. I should like to empathise with the hon. Member for Northampton, South, who is obviously having panic attacks about Europe, but his point has completely passed me by. I do not see how what he has been saying has anything to do with Europe.

Edward O'Hara: Order. Part of the answer to the hon. Gentleman's questions is in clause 1.
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 - CORE schemes: supplemental

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Eleanor Laing: We are making progress, and I am grateful to the Minister for answering so many intricate and difficult questions this morning. In doing so, she gives us more confidence in our understanding of how the proposed schemes will work. As I said, it is important to reach some kind of consensus. The Bill is not like other political matters. If we do not have consensus about how our democracy works, and, as a result, we do not have confidence in the electoral system, that undermines the validity of elections. I do not suggest that we are at that stage now; most Members of the House have confidence in the electoral system, and we have debated it at length many times over the years. However, it is important that we investigate the matters in intricate detail.
I still believe that the system in Britain is one of the best in the world. I felt almost personally insulted when, as happened a few months ago, some of the ways in which our electoral system was administered were referred to very critically as akin to those of a banana republic. Such remarks are not good for democracy in Britain. That remark was made perfectly reasonably, and many of us agreed with it. We cannot have such occurrences, because confidence in the workings of our democracy is basic to the working of our society and country. 
Clause 5(1) provides that a CORE scheme 
''may make provision as to circumstances in which a payment is to be made—
(a) by the CORE keeper to an ERO whose area is specified in the scheme;
(b) by such an ERO to the CORE keeper.''
I wonder why. I should like to know specifically what the Minister of State envisages—[Interruption.] This is the crux of the question. I entirely understand if the Minister of State is not paying absolute attention to every word of my preamble—

Edward O'Hara: Order. I am absolutely confident that the Minister of State is seeking confirmation of the answer that she is going to give.

Eleanor Laing: Of course. My preamble was entirely intended to compliment the Minister of State on her answers to our intricate questions this morning, but I must not repeat that point. I am fully aware that I must not be repetitive, so I thought it important to seek my moment to ask my question. Why would it be necessary for the CORE keeper to pay the ERO, and for the ERO to make payment to the CORE keeper? There is probably a simple answer to that question, but I would like to have it.
Clause 5(2) states that 
''A CORE scheme may make provision
(a) as to circumstances in which the CORE keeper and such an ERO may agree that functions of one of them may be exercised by the other;
(b) for functions of the CORE keeper to be exercised by such an ERO;
(c) for functions of such an ERO to be exercised by the CORE keeper.''
In what circumstances does the Minister of State envisage that those functions would be exercised either by the ERO or by the CORE keeper and vice versa? Similarly, clause 5(3) states: 
''A CORE scheme may make provision as to—
(a) the circumstances in which the CORE keeper may make a charge for the provision of services or information to any person;
(b) the level of any such charge.''
That is an important provision because, quite rightly, the electoral register is used by many organisations. We all get junk mail, which is relevant to this point. I get sacks full of junk mail every week, which is partly due to the fact that I sometimes buy things and give my address in order for those things to be delivered. Therefore, one's name, address, postcode and so on, and apparently one's tastes in everything from kitchen equipment to baby clothes, are recorded in a database somewhere so that one can be bombarded with more junk mail enticing one to buy more goods. 
It is sometimes difficult to imagine how a mail order company gets the name, address and details of a particular person. Often, it has been able to do so because it can buy the electoral register. There is nothing wrong with that because it is public information; I am not criticising that. However, the provisions envisage circumstances in which the CORE keeper may make a charge for the provision of services or information to any person. 
Referring back to our previous discussion on clause 3 about the way in which taxpayers' money is spent in the administration of the electoral system, can taxpayers' money be recouped if the information held either by the ERO or the CORE keeper is used by an outside body for commercial purposes? I am only asking this question, not stating a preference or principle, but is there a possibility that a CORE keeper, an ERO, the Electoral Commission, the Department for Constitutional Affairs or any other spender of public money might recoup that money from those that use the information thus gathered for commercial purposes?

Brian Binley: The Minister is aware that the clause deals with the relationship between the CORE keeper—I still see him in a pointed hat—and the electoral registration officer. It suggests a sizeable change in the command structure and independence of the electoral registration officer. I am not arguing that that is necessarily a bad thing. The differences in performance and ability of our electoral registration officers is one of the problems that we must deal with quickly. However, I want an explanation of how the relationship between the CORE keeper and the electoral registration officer will work, whether there are any authoritative channels that impact on local decision making and whether the CORE keeper will  again have an input on scrutiny. As the Minister knows, I believe that scrutiny, particularly local scrutiny, is an important way of keeping the electoral register as shining white as possible. It is one of those matters that we have given way on and forgotten in recent years.
I should be most grateful if the Minister could explain more about the relationship between the CORE keeper and the electoral registration officer, tell us whether there will be direct managerial responsibilities and explain how that might help local scrutiny of the electoral register.

Henry Bellingham: I should like the Minister to elaborate a little. Clause 5(6)(a) refers to
''section 10, 10A or 13A of the 1983 Act (maintenance of registers)''
and paragraph (b) refers to 
''Schedule 4 to the Representation of the People Act''.
How do the two inter-relate and how will the information that will be required fit in? 
Clause 5(8) states: 
''The Secretary of State may provide to a CORE keeper such facilities and equipment as he thinks are necessary or expedient''.
Could the Minister go into more detail about that? We have spoken about the cost of the CORE keeper, the necessary infrastructure and the inter-relationship with EROs and district borough councils, but could she go into more detail about the facilities and equipment? Conservative Members are concerned, as ever, that any new initiative should provide value for money and should not be an excuse simply to spend taxpayer's money unnecessarily. When creating a new organisation, commissioner, tsar or head of a new body there is always a tendency to introduce facilities that are not just effective and efficient but sometimes very much over the top in terms of manning, office equipment and other assets. Could the Minister elaborate on that point and answer my question on clause 5(6)?

Harriet Harman: At the moment, for users who would normally be expected to pay for copies of the register, there is a charging structure. We expect that a charging structure will need to be established for on-line access. The reasons for the charge, and its level, are likely to be similar if not identical to the current arrangements for sale of the register by local EROs. However, a national electronic register is a different beast. One could read across the charging principles, but not the charging practicalities because one would be dealing with something different.
The question on which we must seek views is how such charging arrangements should operate; for example, whether there should be a general licence fee or a charge per access. People will need to think about the proposal that authorised bodies should be granted direct access and, if so, about what the charging structure might be and how it might work for those who would normally be expected to pay for copies of the register. 
On payments from CORE to the ERO, there is a question about whether the proceeds from the sale—that will depend on the charging structure, which, as yet, has not been established at CORE, national  level—would need to go back to the electoral registration officer who collected the information. Again, there is simply a power to provide for that to happen; otherwise, we might have a situation in which electoral registration officers were collecting all the information and piping it up to CORE at national level, and CORE was selling it, but the electoral registration officers were not getting any of the benefit. The Bill simply provides the framework for an opportunity to decide those arrangements after consultation and by regulation.

Brian Binley: Will the Minister give way?

Harriet Harman: Perhaps I could just finish this point, because I have to hang on to my chain of thought when I am talking about computers. The hon. Gentleman does not have that problem.
As hon. Members will know, it is envisaged that electoral registration officers at local level will collect the information and feed it through to CORE at national level. It will be possible for people not only to obtain that information nationally, but to check information about themselves online and ensure that it is right. In the future—I rather hesitate to mention this—it might be possible to have data-sharing between the national online register and, for example, the DVLA, if the House so decided. That is quite far into the future, but a national online scheme could do different things from local registration officers, and the point is to have the right relationship between the two. 
Therefore, we are thinking about a charging regime that fits into an electronic context. I am told by my very expert officials—I am plunging from my area of expertise into that of the hon. Member for Northampton, South—that all we can say with absolute certainty is that a ''wet'' signature clearly will not work. On that point, perhaps I can conclude my comments.

Brian Binley: I am not sure what a wet signature is, quite frankly.

Harriet Harman: It is not an electronic one.

Brian Binley: Now I understand; the Minister is very kind.
The Minister talked about providing information online and I shall again interject a little background. Some time ago, I founded a company that does exactly that for the pharmaceuticals industry. The company, which is no longer mine, charges pharmaceutical companies a great deal to be online, and it is necessary to make such charges because the information is updated regularly. Nothing is more worthless than outdated information, and the Minister will know that information degrades quite quickly; perhaps by up to 15 per cent. a year compound, a sizeable change. In that respect, has she had any thoughts about online updating and about how we might carry it out? 
Secondly, online access provides a sizeable opportunity for income streams, which should help the process of electoral registration. However, it also  presents sizeable dangers, because once we provide access to online information, we also provide the ability for that access to be used in ways for which the Minister might not care. I am sure that the consultation document will help us on this important point, but I wonder what thinking has been done on ensuring that online data are used for the purposes that the Minister prescribes, that data are not disseminated more widely than prescribed, and that the data are properly paid for. I am not arguing against the measure, but I ask the Minister whether she has thought about that and whether she can tell us a little more.

Harriet Harman: In a way, we touched on that matter during debates on earlier clauses. The measure will be subject to the Data Protection Act. Additionally, through regulations, there will be provision for regimes on the software protocols that could create additional certainty. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that to have confidence in a national register, it must be kept up to date. No one believes that there will be a one-off creation of the register, and then it will be left untouched. There will be variations among areas; some areas have a very high turnover, and some have hardly any.

David Heath: Further to the intervention of the hon. Member for Northampton, South, it does not appear that there is any offence of unauthorised access to the CORE register, nor of unauthorised tampering with it. Has that been considered and rejected, or simply not thought of? There ought to be a specific offence relating to the CORE register, rather than a reliance on the generality of election law to provide for the integrity of that register.

Harriet Harman: Some registers held by an electoral registration officer at local level are already online, although some are held on paper. We expect that, in running a procurement exercise—one would expect a project of this size to entail that—we shall be able to learn from initiatives that are advanced in states in the US that employ state-wide voter-registration databases. We can also learn from other countries that hold central electoral databases in assessing what facilities are necessary.
In relation to offences, clause 2(2) provides specifically for regulations, including offences, to apply to CORE data, just as they do to data held by electoral registration officers.

David Heath: It is a little unusual to introduce offences under regulation, rather than by primary legislation. I ask the Minister to consider whether it might be better to include that in the Bill. I do not wish to press the Minister unduly on that matter, but I am not sure that it is entirely satisfactory for offences to be brought in through secondary legislation.

Harriet Harman: It is not the case that the offences would be brought in through secondary legislation. Rather, the scope of the offences would be extended. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point and I will look at the matter.

Brian Binley: Open access, albeit prescribed, is still at risk of corruption by people who wilfully wish to cause damage. Of course, there any many abilities to protect  against that, but people will get around those measures. Can the Minister provide some details on security in the consultation document so that we might pursue that matter more thoroughly? That is a matter of concern to all of us, which goes to the very heart of our democratic processes. We must scrutinise that area very carefully and perhaps employ some expert advice in doing so.

Harriet Harman: Confidence is important, so questions of security and privacy must be highlighted. We might assist hon. Members in finding their way through this with a couple of sheets of A4 showing all the provisions that will secure the integrity of the register and the privacy of individuals. It is worth putting the spotlight on that separately, and we undertake to do that.
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 - CORE schemes: procedure

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

David Heath: May I ask the Minister what is meant by subsection (5)? It seems odd that the power to make a variation that terminates part of a scheme put in place by statutory instrument following consultation should not itself be subject to consultation. I would expect the Secretary of State to take the advice of the Electoral Commission and other bodies before making a variation that deletes part of the scheme just as for a variation that increases the scope of the scheme. I am at a loss to understand why subsection (5) is in the clause.

Eleanor Laing: Clause 6(4) rightly states:
''An order establishing or varying a CORE scheme must not be made unless the Secretary of State first consults—
(a) the Electoral Commission;
(b) the Information Commissioner;
(c) the ERO who acts for each area proposed to be specified in the scheme;
(d) the ERO who acts for an area the specification of which the Secretary of State proposes to remove from the scheme.''
That is all perfectly reasonable, and we have no objection to it, but why should not there be consultation with the political parties? They know how the register works and are aware of what is and is not working correctly in an area.

Edward O'Hara: Order. I think that the hon. Lady is referring to something that we shall deal with later.

Harriet Harman: In answer to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, the clause provides for one exception to the requirement to consult before making an order, where the effect of the order is to terminate part of a scheme only. The thinking behind that exception is that a particular responsibility of a CORE keeper under a scheme may not be working as envisaged, and that it may be necessary to terminate that aspect of the CORE keeper's responsibilities as quickly as possible to limit the negative impact.
In response to the hon. Member for Epping Forest, the proposed consultees in paragraphs (a) to (d) are statutory creatures; political parties are not in quite the same category. Of course, it goes without saying that political parties will be consulted all the way along, but it is just the statutory creatures that are laid out by way of consultation.

Edward O'Hara: Order. I stand corrected regarding my previous advice to the hon. Lady. I am getting my amendments out of order; she referred to an amendment that has already been debated.

Eleanor Laing: I beg your pardon, Mr. O'Hara. I appreciate that amendment No. 42 touched on this issue, but we did not discuss it at that point. The Minister has given me a good explanation.

Edward O'Hara: Yes; of course, it is not in order to reopen the debate.

Eleanor Laing: I beg your pardon.
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clauses 7 and 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Further consideration adjourned.—[Kevin Brennan.] 
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Twelve o'clock till this day at Four o'clock.